l60 ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS [^292 



full advantage of the new machiner>''" and tried to keep 

 the per tonnage rate of wages at about the same level as 

 before. Each improvement made possible the substitution 

 of a greater proportion of unskilled labor for skilled work- 

 ,men. The union did not organize these unskilled men and 

 hence did not have their active support in labor disputes. 

 Finally, the union limit of output restricted production to 

 such an extent that continuous operation of the mills on 

 either a two turn or a three turn basis was impossible. The 

 refusal of the union properly to adjust the limit to meet this 

 condition antagonized the manufacturers. In the steel in- 

 dustry, then, it was not the sliding scale but the adherence 

 of the union to policies of limitation and restriction which 

 was responsible for its failure. Increased production, in- 

 troduction of technical machinery on a large scale, substitu- 

 tion of unskilled for skilled men, — all demanded new union 

 policies. The rules of the Association were inelastic. 



The iron industr>', on the other hand, has experienced 

 only slight changes in technique in forty years, and the 

 skilled men still dominate the industry. Capital in the iron 

 industry is far less concentrated. English-speaking work- 

 men still hold the skilled positions. The union membership 

 includes but a small proportion of the workmen, even in 

 union plants, and the agreements cover probably less than 

 half the men employed. 



Up to 1890 there seemed to be fairly general satisfaction 

 with the agreement system and the sliding scale. Employ- 

 ers in most cases appreciated the advantages of a standard 

 wage scale, the adjustment of disputes and the intimate con- 

 ference relationship. The growing dissatisfaction of the 

 steel manufacturers with the union policies led in 1892 to 

 the tragic strike at Homestead.'^ The result of this ill- 



'*" Iron Age, as quoted by the National Labor Tribune, May 2, 

 1885. p. 4, col. 2. 



'^' The writer, like Professor Ashley, "Rladly" relieves himself 

 "of the responsibility of pronouncinp; upon the merits of the dis- 

 pute" l)y referring the reader to wiiat he considers an imp.irtial ac- 

 count of the strike in the Economic Journal, 1893, by Professor F. 

 W. Taussig. For other accounts of the struggle, see article en- 



